Thanks, Francis, for the review. > first a meta-question: should this kind of documents refer to its > parent, RFC 6237 (same subject but RFC 6237 is Experimental, the > I-D is for Standards Track)? IMHO it should not (so the I-D is > right) because this will be (only) mentioned in the RFC index.
I'm not sure what you're asking: do you mean to muse about whether the predecessor document should appear in the references section? If so, I agree with your conclusion: it shouldn't... because the predecessor document will be made obsolete by this one, and because there's nothing in the predecessor to which this is referring (except to its existence). > - ToC page 2 and 9 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments Doh! I've fixed the spelling in my working version; thanks. Barry _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
